Metropolitan Police stopping distance video in Charlie Alliston trial raises questions

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

It gets worse. Look at this nonsense from a BBC interviewee. Mr Lane, who rides a fixie himself with a front brake, suggested that bikes should have to be regularly serviced and checked, much like the MOT system for cars. Fuck that. MOT for bikes!! Imagine your local spanner monkey at halfords failing your bike for excessive dirt on running gear and requiring you to buy a new chain.

I think you're missing what an MOT is about. It's about testing to see if the vehicle is safe to be on the road, not whether it's running properly or even if it's correctly maintained (other being kept to a level of being safe).

You could go years without getting your car serviced and it might still pass the MOTs.

Therefore you could go years without replacing things like your chain on your bike or lubing/cleaning it correctly, but it could still be deemed safe if all the rights bits are tight, it has two working brakes and the tyres are pumped up (any bike MOT would be a bit more than that, but you get the idea).

Also, the thing with an MOT is that its a nationally defined test with clear guidelines, unlike the building/checking of a bike at your local shop (halfords or otherwise). Before anyone jumps on this, yes I know many mechanics are cytech certified - myself included - and that there are documentented approaches, but the point is they are not mandatory and applied rigorously.

In some ways an MOT for bikes is good idea, but the problem is that it will likely put many people off cycling, much like making helmets compulsary would.

I'm not surprised that the bloke from LMNH is backing the bike MOT though - don't they have repair/servicing workshops? It'd be a nice little additional money spinner.

joules1975 wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

It gets worse. Look at this nonsense from a BBC interviewee. Mr Lane, who rides a fixie himself with a front brake, suggested that bikes should have to be regularly serviced and checked, much like the MOT system for cars. Fuck that. MOT for bikes!! Imagine your local spanner monkey at halfords failing your bike for excessive dirt on running gear and requiring you to buy a new chain.

I think you're missing what an MOT is about. It's about testing to see if the vehicle is safe to be on the road, not whether it's running properly or even if it's correctly maintained (other being kept to a level of being safe).

You could go years without getting your car serviced and it might still pass the MOTs.

Therefore you could go years without replacing things like your chain on your bike or lubing/cleaning it correctly, but it could still be deemed safe if all the rights bits are tight, it has two working brakes and the tyres are pumped up (any bike MOT would be a bit more than that, but you get the idea).

Also, the thing with an MOT is that its a nationally defined test with clear guidelines, unlike the building/checking of a bike at your local shop (halfords or otherwise). Before anyone jumps on this, yes I know many mechanics are cytech certified - myself included - and that there are documentented approaches, but the point is they are not mandatory and applied rigorously.

In some ways an MOT for bikes is good idea, but the problem is that it will likely put many people off cycling, much like making helmets compulsary would.

I'm not surprised that the bloke from LMNH is backing the bike MOT though - don't they have repair/servicing workshops? It'd be a nice little additional money spinner.

I think that you are over estimating how effective MOT's are for motor vehicles. Certain areas are pretty good, but others not so much. There are lots of people in to car modification who put things back to how they should be for the MOT, then revert to the modified state as soon as they get their certificate. Even relatively normal enthusiasts of some top end manufacturers do things to their vehicles e.g. to improve the sound (temporary mod's to exhaust systems) or performance (plug in ECU box things) which would make a vehicle fail an MOT if left in the modified state.

If a similar test was introduced for bikes, they are even easier to mess around with. There would be nothing to stop your man in this instance from sticking a front brake on to the bike for an hour, then removing it as soon as it was certified. It would only take about 5-10 min's.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

It gets worse. Look at this nonsense from a BBC interviewee. Mr Lane, who rides a fixie himself with a front brake, suggested that bikes should have to be regularly serviced and checked, much like the MOT system for cars. Fuck that. MOT for bikes!! Imagine your local spanner monkey at halfords failing your bike for excessive dirt on running gear and requiring you to buy a new chain.

Any half competent person should be able to check that they have two brakes and inflated tyres. Now unless this proposed MOT has carbon frame X-raying thrown in for less than £50 I'm dead against it.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

It gets worse. Look at this nonsense from a BBC interviewee.

Mr Lane, who rides a fixie himself with a front brake, suggested that bikes should have to be regularly serviced and checked, much like the MOT system for cars.

Fuck that. MOT for bikes!! Imagine your local spanner monkey at halfords failing your bike for excessive dirt on running gear and requiring you to buy a new chain.

Next: Timpson's call for compulsory shoe-inspections for pedestrians.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

As far as I understand it Charlie Alliston was riding a bike which did not have a front brake, which is illegal to use on the open road.

At the time of the incident it is said he was doing 18 mph. 

He collided with Kim Briggs, who had walked out into the road without seeing him. He tried to slow or stop his bike and avoid the individual, yelling at the Kim. Unavoidably they collided, and in the resulting collision Kim hit her head badly and died from this injury.

Sadly, we don't know if having a front brake would have changed the outcome for Kim.

Alliston's personal lack of contrition has made him look very callous in all of this - and his attitude in not accepting blame for this tragic accident has made him a pariah.

But if his crime is being in a fatal accident and having a vehicle that was not road worthy a lot more motorists should consider themselves lucky.

good summary - maybe could be modifed to "reported personal lack of contrition" - in view of their past record, why should we give the MSM the benefit of doubt over their accuracy of reporting of the emotional aspects?

Rich_cb wrote:

The video is not a good or fair comparison. I don't really think it matters in this case though. He had time to shout twice, therefore he had time to brake. It is obvious that he would have been able to reduce his speed far more quickly with a front brake in situ. Reduced speed would have made the collision less likely and even if it still occurred it would have involved less energy reducing the likelihood of serious injury.

he DID brake, from approx 18mph to approx 10mph (A speed given by the prosecution as within the range of speed upon impact), a speed that you would know is a dawdle and as per pretty much everyone else would be fine to go around someone fart arsing about in the road.

Do you brake to a complete stop as fast as you can possibly manage (Which is what the prosecution are saying you should do to avoid such) at the mere sight of someone potentially going to cross the road or is in the process of crossing the road, either in car or on bike when a fair few metres away?  99.99999% of all situations for all types of road user that would be an absolute no.

he had two lots of thinking to do, the first when he first acknowledged the hazard and braked, that takes up 1.5seconds thinking time for the unexpected situation plus a bit for mechanical action time.

When the deceased failed to get her shit together and cross in a normal fashion as would be expected he would have had yet another set of decisions to make (another 1.5s thinking time for the unexpected step back into him). At this point that is the 3.8sec from her stepping out and thus he had no time to brake further because at 10mph (A slow speed remember, she moves back into him).

Therefore unless you ask every single road user to come to a complete stop every time someone makes a move toward a crossing or a motor, cycle, equine, invalid carriage  etc comes to a junction, rounabout you have priority just in case they do the unexpected, then you cannot find the convicted rider of a slow moving bicycle guilty of wanton and furious riding because the law/justice system will not instist on the exact same set of values/responsibilities/actions for all those groups in any given scenario.

We know this already because those rules have being breached time and time and time again with the death of pedestrians and people on bikes by motorists with naught but a slap on the wrist if even any case to answer.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

he DID brake, from approx 18mph to approx 10mph (A speed given by the prosecution as within the range of speed upon impact), a speed that you would know is a dawdle and as per pretty much everyone else would be fine to go around someone fart arsing about in the road.

Do you brake to a complete stop as fast as you can possibly manage (Which is what the prosecution are saying you should do to avoid such) at the mere sight of someone potentially going to cross the road or is in the process of crossing the road, either in car or on bike when a fair few metres away?  99.99999% of all situations for all types of road user that would be an absolute no.

he had two lots of thinking to do, the first when he first acknowledged the hazard and braked, that takes up 1.5seconds thinking time for the unexpected situation plus a bit for mechanical action time.

When the deceased failed to get her shit together and cross in a normal fashion as would be expected he would have had yet another set of decisions to make (another 1.5s thinking time for the unexpected step back into him). At this point that is the 3.8sec from her stepping out and thus he had no time to brake further because at 10mph (A slow speed remember, she moves back into him).

Therefore unless you ask every single road user to come to a complete stop every time someone makes a move toward a crossing or a motor, cycle, equine, invalid carriage  etc comes to a junction, rounabout you have priority just in case they do the unexpected, then you cannot find the convicted rider of a slow moving bicycle guilty of wanton and furious riding because the law/justice system will not instist on the exact same set of values/responsibilities/actions for all those groups in any given scenario.

We know this already because those rules have being breached time and time and time again with the death of pedestrians and people on bikes by motorists with naught but a slap on the wrist if even any case to answer.

 

The point is that once the decision was made to brake he was not able to reduce his speed as effectively without a front brake.

That is undeniable.

Pedestrians do unpredictable things, you've previously advocated for motorists remaining vigilant in case of people unexpectedly entering the road.

How is this case any different?

If you're in an area with a lot of pedestrians reduce your speed and cover your brakes, it's just common sense.

Rich_cb wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

he DID brake, from approx 18mph to approx 10mph (A speed given by the prosecution as within the range of speed upon impact), a speed that you would know is a dawdle and as per pretty much everyone else would be fine to go around someone fart arsing about in the road.

Do you brake to a complete stop as fast as you can possibly manage (Which is what the prosecution are saying you should do to avoid such) at the mere sight of someone potentially going to cross the road or is in the process of crossing the road, either in car or on bike when a fair few metres away?  99.99999% of all situations for all types of road user that would be an absolute no.

he had two lots of thinking to do, the first when he first acknowledged the hazard and braked, that takes up 1.5seconds thinking time for the unexpected situation plus a bit for mechanical action time.

When the deceased failed to get her shit together and cross in a normal fashion as would be expected he would have had yet another set of decisions to make (another 1.5s thinking time for the unexpected step back into him). At this point that is the 3.8sec from her stepping out and thus he had no time to brake further because at 10mph (A slow speed remember, she moves back into him).

Therefore unless you ask every single road user to come to a complete stop every time someone makes a move toward a crossing or a motor, cycle, equine, invalid carriage  etc comes to a junction, rounabout you have priority just in case they do the unexpected, then you cannot find the convicted rider of a slow moving bicycle guilty of wanton and furious riding because the law/justice system will not instist on the exact same set of values/responsibilities/actions for all those groups in any given scenario.

We know this already because those rules have being breached time and time and time again with the death of pedestrians and people on bikes by motorists with naught but a slap on the wrist if even any case to answer.

 

The point is that once the decision was made to brake he was not able to reduce his speed as effectively without a front brake. That is undeniable. Pedestrians do unpredictable things, you've previously advocated for motorists remaining vigilant in case of people unexpectedly entering the road. How is this case any different? If you're in an area with a lot of pedestrians reduce your speed and cover your brakes, it's just common sense.

So slowing down to 10mph (admitted by prosecution) and diverting around the hazard is not being careful/vigilant in any ordinary circumstance? comparing to the actions of motorists in this instance is total and utter cobblers, motorists rarely show such consideration by comparison and still get off scott free.

As i said, would you yourself come to a complete halt as immediately as is physically possible (or even less than is pyhsically possible going by the prosecutions ridiculous/spurious claims) when a pedestrian is seemingly going to cross the road or does cross in front of you some distance away?

Well, do you, if not, why not? I don't need you to answer because I know full well that that would rarely if ever happen in the same circumstances that the convicted faced, I include myself and everyone else in that.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So slowing down to 10mph (admitted by prosecution) and diverting around the hazard is not being careful/vigilant in any ordinary circumstance? comparing to the actions of motorists in this instance is total and utter cobblers, motorists rarely show such consideration by comparison and still get off scott free.

As i said, would you yourself come to a complete halt as immediately as is physically possible (or even less than is pyhsically possible going by the prosecutions ridiculous/spurious claims) when a pedestrian is seemingly going to cross the road or does cross in front of you some distance away?

Well, do you, if not, why not? I don't need you to answer because I know full well that that would rarely if ever happen in the same circumstances that the convicted faced, I include myself and everyone else in that.

You can't call for stricter sentencing when motorists kill vulnerable road users and not apply the same standards when cyclists do.

That's hypocrisy.

I would like to see manslaughter charges brought against motorists in similar situations.

The cyclist in this case took reasonable action once the lady stepped in front of him but those actions were insufficient to avoid a collision.

If he had even riding a legal bicycle his braking would have been superior and he could either have avoided the collision or it would have occurred at a much lower speed reducing the likelihood of harm.

I will reduce my speed quite substantially if there are pedestrians in the road ahead, I also keep an eye on the pavement for any pedestrians who look like they may be about to step out.

Will that prevent all collisions? Obviously not but if a collision does occur I will be able to say that I took all reasonable steps to avoid it.

The cyclist in this case could not do that due to the simple fact he was riding an illegal bicycle.

Rich_cb wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So slowing down to 10mph (admitted by prosecution) and diverting around the hazard is not being careful/vigilant in any ordinary circumstance? comparing to the actions of motorists in this instance is total and utter cobblers, motorists rarely show such consideration by comparison and still get off scott free.

As i said, would you yourself come to a complete halt as immediately as is physically possible (or even less than is pyhsically possible going by the prosecutions ridiculous/spurious claims) when a pedestrian is seemingly going to cross the road or does cross in front of you some distance away?

Well, do you, if not, why not? I don't need you to answer because I know full well that that would rarely if ever happen in the same circumstances that the convicted faced, I include myself and everyone else in that.

You can't call for stricter sentencing when motorists kill vulnerable road users and not apply the same standards when cyclists do. That's hypocrisy. I would like to see manslaughter charges brought against motorists in similar situations. The cyclist in this case took reasonable action once the lady stepped in front of him but those actions were insufficient to avoid a collision. If he had even riding a legal bicycle his braking would have been superior and he could either have avoided the collision or it would have occurred at a much lower speed reducing the likelihood of harm. I will reduce my speed quite substantially if there are pedestrians in the road ahead, I also keep an eye on the pavement for any pedestrians who look like they may be about to step out. Will that prevent all collisions? Obviously not but if a collision does occur I will be able to say that I took all reasonable steps to avoid it. The cyclist in this case could not do that due to the simple fact he was riding an illegal bicycle.

This, and if Alliston has to do time in order to achieve it, I won't lose any sleep. The prosecution has given us the tools to do it. I would want this prosecution team in my corner if I were to be hit by a motorised vehicle.

Rich_cb wrote:

You can't call for stricter sentencing when motorists kill vulnerable road users and not apply the same standards when cyclists do.

That's hypocrisy.

Is it?

When a cyclist and pedestrian collide, and someone dies - what percentage of those who die are pedestrians and what percentage are cyclists.  I know of two recent case where a cyclist and a pedestrian and who stepped into the road have collided, in one case (this case) the pedestrian died, in the other, it was the cyclist.

When a motorist and pedestrian collide, what percentage of motorists die?

How many pedestrians die from a slip/trip/fall without colliding with anyone?

I try to be a cautious as is practical when cycling around pedestrians,  but primarily for my own safety as I know that I stand a good chance of coming off worse from any collision.  When I drive, I primarily drive safely to avoid injury to others.

Operating a motor vehicle caries much less risk to the driver, which is why they have much greater responsibility.

jh27 wrote:

Is it?

 

When a cyclist and pedestrian collide, and someone dies - what percentage of those who die are pedestrians and what percentage are cyclists.  I know of two recent case where a cyclist and a pedestrian and who stepped into the road have collided, in one case (this case) the pedestrian died, in the other, it was the cyclist.

 

When a motorist and pedestrian collide, what percentage of motorists die?

 

How many pedestrians die from a slip/trip/fall without colliding with anyone?

 

I try to be a cautious as is practical when cycling around pedestrians,  but primarily for my own safety as I know that I stand a good chance of coming off worse from any collision.  When I drive, I primarily drive safely to avoid injury to others.

 

Operating a motor vehicle caries much less risk to the driver, which is why they have much greater responsibility.

Yes it is.

If you drive a defective car you're putting both yourself and other road users in danger.

Ditto for a defective bike.

A defective bike may not be as dangerous as a defective car but it can still be fatal.

That is the crux of the matter, a man rode an illegal bike and a lady died in a collision with that bike.

Had the bike been legal the collision would have either not occurred or occurred at much lower speed reducing the likelihood of injury.

cyclisto wrote:

Wow where are all the boasters about road rim brakrs that we usually find in the technical threads?
So let's clear out things in braking:
2 wheels braking>front wheel only>rear wheel only
fresh tires>old tires
fat tires>skinny tires
slick tires>threaded tires
hydraulic disks>disks>v-brakes>calipers>rear wheel skid (unless you have the thighs of Sir Hoy)

Please finally accept the above if you haven't so already, because flat earthers exist everywhere.

You're wrong on two brakes being better than front alone. There is hard science behind this.

CygnusX1 wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

Wow where are all the boasters about road rim brakrs that we usually find in the technical threads?
So let's clear out things in braking:
2 wheels braking>front wheel only>rear wheel only
fresh tires>old tires
fat tires>skinny tires
slick tires>threaded tires
hydraulic disks>disks>v-brakes>calipers>rear wheel skid (unless you have the thighs of Sir Hoy)

Please finally accept the above if you haven't so already, because flat earthers exist everywhere.

You're wrong on two brakes being better than front alone. There is hard science behind this.

Yes I know, you know, in laboratory conditions with grippy tarmac, a good rider but who is simultaneously too bored to shift his weight behind the saddle, yes indeed you may equal braking distances with no rear saddle. But there is rain, slippery tarmac, skinny tires, people who don't have integrated brake assist in their hands like cars do, people who can shift their weight while braking and of course curves. So in real world conditions a rear brake is needed.

Don't be fooled though about my intentions, it is extremely idiotic to ride brakeless bike, in my opinion a bike with poor caliper brakes with worn skinny tires too, but city speed limits work in another way. Their concept is not that they are low so that drivers and riders may manage to stop, but so that when the inevitable collision happens, the pedestrian victims may survive. It is idiotic too trying to prove that in panic situation a rider can stop in 3m even more when we are talking about a bike/rider combo with minimal mass and therefore damage he may cause. Simply the victim was very very unlucky just like the people struck by lighting, eaten by a shark and so on.

CygnusX1 wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

Wow where are all the boasters about road rim brakrs that we usually find in the technical threads? So let's clear out things in braking: 2 wheels braking>front wheel only>rear wheel only

You're wrong on two brakes being better than front alone. There is hard science behind this.

Only if you're capable of doing a stoppie with the rear wheel 100% unweighted, but not quite going over the handlebars.

Two brakes are also better than a front alone if your front brake ever fails, which is why the law requires two separate systems in the first place:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/manchester-cyclist-hits-bu...

armb wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

Wow where are all the boasters about road rim brakrs that we usually find in the technical threads? So let's clear out things in braking: 2 wheels braking>front wheel only>rear wheel only

You're wrong on two brakes being better than front alone. There is hard science behind this.

Only if you're capable of doing a stoppie with the rear wheel 100% unweighted, but not quite going over the handlebars.

Two brakes are also better than a front alone if your front brake ever fails, which is why the law requires two separate systems in the first place:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/manchester-cyclist-hits-bu...

If you can't do a stoppie, then your front brake (or tyre) is essentially defective. If you maximise braking through the front wheel then the rear becomes irrelevant.

Been there, done that, still wasn't enough to avoid hitting a car that pulled out about 6.53m in front of me while I was going 18mph.

armb wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

Wow where are all the boasters about road rim brakrs that we usually find in the technical threads? So let's clear out things in braking: 2 wheels braking>front wheel only>rear wheel only

You're wrong on two brakes being better than front alone. There is hard science behind this.

Only if you're capable of doing a stoppie with the rear wheel 100% unweighted, but not quite going over the handlebars.

Two brakes are also better than a front alone if your front brake ever fails, which is why the law requires two separate systems in the first place:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/manchester-cyclist-hits-bu...

Absolutely agree on needing two brakes - but the rear is your backup for a defective front, or for when you are unable to maintain traction with your front wheel (e.g. rough surfaces). If you can't do a stoppie with an unweighted rear withut going over the bars, you either need to practice or fix your front brakes.

The late Sheldon Brown, though he was not always infallible, was on the money with his write up here:

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html